“Visiting a museum is a surprisingly close substitute for shopping”

Mark Jones: “The V&A; had been going to a difficult period, quite a long difficult period in fact, which I think to some extent started with the early retirement of a number of senior treasurers. As so often, there was a gap between the media representation of the situation and the reality. What I found when I came to the V&A;, was a museum that was in very much better health than the media would have let one to suppose. I think that my predecessor Alain Borg did a very good job in many ways. The museum was well run and had a much higher moral than one would have supposed from the media. But there were problems, and there are problems.
One problem was that the V&A;’s visitors numbers the visitors numbers had fallen to round and about one million a year. The consequence I suppose, among other things, of the admission charge that was introduced under my predecessor. Now that they are again abolished, and after the opening of new displays and an increasingly exciting program, the visitor numbers have gone up to two million. Not that one should be obsessed with visitor numbers, but when you have a museum which isn't giving enough people enough pleasure, then you do have some problem.”

- Abolishing the admission charge was the first thing you announced as a director. Why was this so important?

“British people, particularly educated middle class people, regard free access to museums and galleries as being an important part of their culture. This isn't true in other countries. I think it has in part to do with the kind of thought that underlay the creation of these museums, particularly in the 19th century. You have to remember that, although Britain did not experience the revolutions of 1798, 1830, 1848 and 1870, they were extraordinary aware of what was going on. Many people in this country were uneasily aware that they were not invulnerable to the contagion of revolutionary flavour. They asked themselves: ‘How can we give people a sense of having a stake in the society in which they live?’ Of course the answer was complex, but one part of the answer was that we need to create civic institutions, which are there for the entire population. Henry Cole, who was the first director of this museum, particularly prided himself on the fact that many of the visitors of the V&A; were people from the working classes. He made it possible for these people to visit and to enjoy their visit. The museum was open in the evenings, when people weren't working, it was open on Sundays and right from the beginning it had a bar and a refreshment room. If people enjoying the museum wanted a glass of beer, they could have a glass of bear. Right from the 19th century exhibitions were intended to be common, civic resource. Therefore, there has always been some resistance to the idea that you should have to pay to get in.”

- Is the abolishment of charges recommendable for countries on the Continent?

“I find that difficult to answer. It is difficult, unless you're part of a culture, to know exactly what the meaning of this kind of thing is. It seems to me that in the Netherlands the ‘Museumkaart’ (a season-ticket with which you have free access to all Dutch museums, sh) has been very successful in creating a relationship between museum and public. Perhaps that is also a good model, from which others might learn. If we still had museum charges, I would have been strongly interested in trying to investigate that model.”

- Have the functions of museums very much changed, since the 19th century?

“What you characteristically see, is a curious combination of change - which is continuous - combined with a surprising tendency for institutional cultures to retain some continuity. A lot of institutions derive a continuing sense of their purpose from their founding mission. The V&A; owes it origin to a specific anxiety: that British manufactures were no longer as competitive as they had been, because designers in this country were not as good as those of some of our European competitors, particularly in France. Therefore the government created a school of design, actually one of very first occasions on which the government of this country recognised they had a responsibility for education. That school of design from the beginning had a museum, which was intended to provide the examples from which design students would learn. They thought: training designers is essential. But there is no point in training designers, unless you can create the marked too. So you have also to in some sense to educate the consumer. You have to try and engage in choices made by he consumer and get them to be more demanding in terms of the quality of what they buy. The purposes of the V&A; – in those days it was called the South Kensington museum - were seen very much as the education of desire, the education of the consumer, combined with the education of the capitalist or the manufacturer, combined with the education and inspiration of the artists and designer.
In 2004, our economy increasingly depends on its reputation for creativity and innovation. Manufacturing is an increasingly unimportant part of our national income. Those jobs are going elsewhere; many back office functions are exported to India and other countries. In fact the creative industries in this country are growing three times as fast as the economy as a whole. The V&A;'s position in that sense is a renewal of its mid 19th century position. Because when you ask who really values the V&A; in terms of their productivity and creativity, it's the fashion designers, the product designers, the architects, the artists; there is a whole range of creative people who look in 2004 to the V&A; as being a source of inspiration. And a source of reference too: where do you go to find a range of possible sources for your ideas?
In the intermediate period the V&A; also became a great art museum. It became the national British collection of sculpture, of decorative arts, acquired one of the principal collections of materials from China, Japan, India, Southeast Asia and so on. It has a multitude of functions. But in that, is still very much this founding idea, which is extremely important.”

- Is not amusement - infotainment - becoming more and more important?

“Henry Cole already said: ‘This is got to be fun! We are not going to get working class families coming into this museum if it's no fun.’ The most successful exhibitions in the 19th century in terms of numbers were exhibitions like the prince of Whales' wedding-presents. In the late 19th century there was a strong move away from that kind of popular mission and a stronger move towards concentrating on the most prestigious kinds of art. There was a tendency to belittle the importance of popular participation. To some extent it is the revolution of the wheel, but as it happens, we are at the moment rather close to where we were fifty years ago.”

- Are you all in all optimistic about the future of museums?

“I see both opportunities and a problem. This is a society which is much more visible aware and visibly sophisticated than in the twentieth century. People are much more used now, to the idea that you can learn through decoding images as well as through absorbing texts. You only have to look at advertisements to see that that's true. Many advertisers assume that the viewer would be willing to decode the visual image to get the message. It has become a relatively easy message to get across that you can learn about other cultures, about the past, about your own period by looking at things and asking yourself what they're telling you.
Another big advantage is that on the whole there has been an increasing tendency to lower the boundaries between the facts and fiction. The invention of what they call the docu-drama is a good example of that. Are docu-drama's fact or fiction? Nobody really knows… A lot of what we read about in the newspapers – especially when celebrities are concerned - is made up. Therefore, I think there is a real hunger for authenticity. The reassuring thing about museums is that the objects they show are, to some extent, kind of obstinate representations of a particular moment, a particular place a particular time, a particular process of manufacture: they are very much of themselves. Of course we overlay them with layers of interpretation, we extract one meaning or another from them, we restore them in this way, or we conserve them in that way; one doesn't want to be to naïf about this. But nevertheless, I think that museum have a reputation for authenticity, which is increasingly valuable.
So there are two kind of advantages which we perhaps didn't have so much before. One of our problems is that the impact of technology has been to reduce - not increase - the amount of time that you can devote to leisure. I’m not so sure about the Netherlands, but in the United Kingdom people are incredibly prone to working long hours and are squeezing the amount of time they have for other occupations. Furthermore, the competition for their time has increased enormously, fantastically really. During the 1990s, I’ve lived for ten years in Edinburgh. The number of restaurants which I choose tot go to has increased from about a hundred to three hundred! Another example: shopping has become more and more elaborate and more and more sophisticated. A museum like the V&A; is in many ways a surprisingly close substitute for that. I can spend my time going from one designer shop to another, admiring the products of Armani of Drior or Westwood, or I can go to the V&A; to do that, or admire the paintings of Raphael. In essence these are surprisingly close substitutes. I think it's very interesting and from my point of view rather heartening, that in this highly competitive world the amount of time that people spend in museums in this country has not really gone down.”

- Are you not afraid politicians will ask for ever more influence in return for the public money they spend on museums? Your exhibition ‘Exotic Encounters’, about the meetings between Europe and Asia in the period 1500 to 1800. What if the government would have asked you to organise that?

“In many ways I wish they did! You mention ‘Encounters’, at the same time we’re doing a travelling exhibition called ‘Palace and Mosque’ drawing specifically from our Islamic collections, which are going to be redisplayed in 2006. Does that mean that we're interested in trying to further a more sophisticated understanding of Islamic culture and history? Yes of course we are, absolutely. Again, Henry Cole and his generation were fascinated by what they and their contemporaries could learn from the approach to decoration in different cultures. That is why the V&A; from the beginning had a very strong collection of material from Islam and the East. Did the government put us up to that? No they didn't, I rather wish they had. What happened in France, was that Chirac asked: why does the Louvre not have a major display for the Islamic collections? Now it does have an Islamic department. The French government provided the money for it. I wouldn't mind a bit if the British government would do a similar thing. On the contrary, it's quite disappointing that it hasn't in that way recognised how important it is that different cultures, from different parts of the world should see themselves respected and reflected in the national institutions. That is one of the ways in which you can make them to understand that actually yes, their culture is interesting, it is valuable. We, in other parts of the world, can learn from it.”

- But what if there would be a rather xenophobic government, which wishes you to stress the British national feeling? If such a government would ask you to organise an exhibition about British national history, would you accept that?

“I am not saying that it is sensible for governments to try to micro-manage museums. I think that it is rather difficult for people in politics to understand that the kinds of knowledge and timescales we need to do our job well, are longer than a political timescale. Quite frequently, governments ask: ‘We have a state visite in six months time, couldn't we do something?’ Then we have to answer: ‘We can do something, but it is impossible to put on a major exhibition in six months. It doesn't work like that. Governments micromanaging museums would be foolish.
But are museums in some sense to be exempted from the general polity? If we live in a democracy, do we think that democratic governments have a right to determine how taxpayers money is spent and therefore what should be done with it? I know some people believe so, but I think that is rather peculiar. Of course if we're going to take museums seriously, than we must recognise that governments which attempt to determine policies on education on health and transport, can determine policies on museums as well. Personally I would be extremely upset if we had a xenophobe government, but that would be a problem about democracy and it's outcome, its not a problem that you can deal with by saying government shouldn't tell museums what to do.”

- Another possible threat: are you not afraid that sponsors will get ever more influence?

“Yes, I think what we have to understand about sponsorship, is that essentially those who pay have influence. If you would look at museums in different countries, you very often find that there is a display of Korean materials. Is that because Korean culture is more historically interesting than for example Vietnamese culture? No, not a bit. It is because Koreans have been prepared to pay for Koran galleries and the Vietnamese have not the money to pay for Vietnamese galleries. Therefore the world is full of Korean displays but there are almost no Vietnamese ones.
The fact is, that whether we like it or not, on the whole society tends to value things which are expensive more than things which are cheap. Funding persistently goes to museums which have the high status objects, which are the most expensive ones.
Coming back to sponsorship: of course, if your program depends on obtaining money from large corporations, that will in some sense be reflected in the program, in the long term. But it is important not to confuse that with direct influence. We in the V&A; certainly do not allow sponsors any direct influence into the content of exhibitions. This would be a terrible blow to our reputation and it certainly would not be worth the money. You have to draw a distinction between the very subtle pervasive long-term influence and the short time immediate danger. Doing an exhibition about bear, sponsored by a bear company, that may happen, but it certainly doesn't happen here.”

- But will that not become an immediate danger, because there is ever less public money?

“But it is not just sponsorship. I think more important is the role of private donors. The V&A; needs to invest about 200 million Pounds, in order to work properly as a 21 century museum, and about 70 or 80 million for a new building which will bring together our contemporary program and make it much more visible. The remainder is required for the periodic renewal of the building and the exhibitions within it. Renewing exhibitions once every 25 years is not very ambitious. How much of that money is coming from the government? Current projections say it will be left at about five percent. That means the remainder has to come from other sources. How much can come from the lottery, which is a kind of public funding, although it has it own particular preferences. I don't know, maybe about ten percent. That means that 85 percent of the amount of this renewal has got to come form the private sector. Anybody who thinks that if your dependant for 85 percent on rich individuals for what you do, the collective preferences of those rich will have no impact on the way a museum develops, is living in [calcucila]. I’m afraid many people do live in [calcucila]. You simple have to look at American art museums and ask yourself and ask yourself: would these art museums be the same places if they would not depend on rich people for their capital? Which is not to say that rich people don't have a wide range of interests, that they are not genuinely philanthropic, that they don't have a good eye. But obviously rich people will create institutions which in the end are the kind of institutions which rich people want to see.”

- What if, for example, a fundamentalist Islamic group would like to organise an exhibition...

“I find that difficult to imagine, if you're really talking about fundamentalist Islam. Much of European art is concerned with the representation of images, and within the Islamic tradition the place of representation is rather contested. So it is a rather hypothetical hypothesis. If you would say instead: what about a Muslim who feels that it will be worth getting more people to engage with the richness and diversity of Islamic history and culture? That would be a pretty worth while thing to do.
Any museum which has an interest in it's reputation has got to think carefully about who it accepts money from. Because if it accepts money with the wrong conditions and from the wrong people, than it is going to damage its reputation in ways which among other things will affect other people's willingness to give. So it would not even be sensible on a purely financial level.”

- Are you pessimistic about a future in which the role of sponsorship and private investors will become more and more important?

“I'm not pessimistic. What is good about it, is that seeking donations forces any museum or institution to explain to potential donors why they should give. That obligation to explain to others why you're doing something is a very healthy experience. I think that the energy and the ability of those donors can be very healthy too. So there is a lot which is entirely positive. But I think on the negative side, it would be naïf to suppose that the dependence of museums on big companies and rich individuals could have no impact on their overall sense of where they're going. Just to take a small example: if you have a lot of people giving money and they want to have a big party with lots of champagne, obviously that's what you're going to have.
It is neither wholly positive nor very negative. What I would like to see is a world in which there is good public funding, reasonably supplemented by private donations from people who really care about what museums do.”

© 2004 Sylvester Hoogmoed

A translation of this interview was partly published in the Dutch quarterly de Helling in December 2004.

Webite V&A; Museum